Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves variance to let landowner build shop 43 feet from section line
Summary
Williams County Planning and Zoning Commission approved a variance allowing landowner Adam Bernell to construct a 60-by-100-foot shop 43 feet from a section line where the ordinance requires a 133-foot setback; the vote was unanimous and the case is MS19-000055.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Williams County Planning and Zoning Commission on June 21 approved a variance that will allow landowner Adam Bernell to place a 60-by-100-foot shop 43 feet from a section line, instead of the 133-foot setback required in the rural residential zoning district.
Staff told the commission the parcel is listed under case MS19-000055 and is located in the northeast southeast of section 34, township 154 north, range 100 west (Stony Creek Township). Staff said the site’s terrain limits buildable areas and that access to the property is from 132nd Road Northwest. Because the requested reduction exceeds the county’s 25% administrative-variance threshold, the request required commission action.
At the public hearing the applicant, who identified himself as Adam Bernell, said he is the landowner and described steep, uneven ground as the reason the shop must be sited close to the property line. "I'm the land owner. I just wanted to highlight how rugged and like offgrade my property is, and that's why I'm so close to the property line on that side," Bernell said.
After closing the public portion, a commissioner moved to approve the variance "with staff comments." The motion was seconded and passed on a roll call vote; commissioners recorded five yes votes and no negative votes. The commission’s action approves the variance; any additional permitting or inspections will proceed under county rules for building and site development.
The commission did not place additional conditions on the approval in the transcripted discussion. The outcome is administrative for the county’s permitting process; no appeal or subsequent county-commission action was recorded in the meeting transcript.

